Category talk:External properties

Untitled

It's been proposed that we very much need a new category with which to tag GI Joe characters, Spider-Man and Nicholas, and any other pre-existing properties Transformers have interacted with. The idea put forth is that it makes us look kind of dumb to tag characters like Snake Eyes, who only exist in fiction for the purpose of promoting toys, or Spider-Man, who has many more toys than Optimus Prime, with Category:Comics-only characters. It's well-established that we feign ignorance of anything canonical to these properties that happens without a Transformers logo stamped on it somewhere in the body of an article (up to and including the friggin' heights of Star Wars characters), but several of us feel that the tags should be done straight. Thoughts? --Rotty 08:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is entirely appropriate for guys like Snake Eyes and Spider-Man to be in the Comic-only characters category, as when it comes to Transformers, that's what they are. --KilMichaelMcC 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My position on this is that there's an awfully clear line between not covering material outside the scope of an encyclopedia on a specific subject and putting counter-factual information in one. The people who come here from outside Wiigii!, they're coming with the assumption that a Wiki is intended to contain factual information and intentionally false information is vandalism. I don't think it makes it look clever to have a policy of tagging our entries as though we're unaware of non-Transformers media. --Rotty 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap, I agree with Rotty. --ItsWalky 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am one of those people who come here from outside Wiigii!, and I still think the use of the Comic-only characters category is appropriate, for the reason stated above. Perhaps we should add text on the Comic-only characters category page to clarify the meaning of the category, that "comic-only" applies only to the characters' appearances in the world of Transformers. I would also point out that we already have links to yojoe.com on all of the GI Joe character pages, which acknowledge their toy-having-ness, and we have the "Marvel properties" category for guys like Spider-Man. Spidey's page also an external link to his Wikipedia article. --KilMichaelMcC 16:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that I don't actually object to creating an "External properties" (the second word shouldn't be capitalized) category, although I would not favor using it as a substitute for the Comic-only category in every instance. --KilMichaelMcC 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the category is a good idea, but similar to Kil, I don't think it should replace something like comic-only. It should merely be yet-another category for that page. I don't consider it misinformation to call Spidey or Shipwreck a comic-only character in the context of a Transformers knowledgebase, especially since we provide links to further information about them. I mean, neither of them is really a "Generation 1 character" either, but we have them in that category anyway.

I do wonder how to fit this new category into our others, though. Most of what goes into it will probably be characters, so we could make it a subcat under Category:Characters, but something like U.S. 1 isn't really a character, and yet is from an external property. Oh... maybe U.S. 1 is a character after all. Well, whatever. Conceivably we might want to have an article about some piece of tech or something that originated in another property. It would be "cleaner" if we had external-property-characters, external-property-places, external-property-things, etc.. But it seems really silly to make all of those. --Steve-o 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Walky or Suki, could one of you make G.I. Joe a subcategory of this category, while making Cobra a subcategory of G.I. Joe? --Rotty 19:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better to make both "G.I. Joe" and "Cobra" subcategories of "G.I. Joe properties" or "Hasbro properties."--ItsWalky 20:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. --Rotty 20:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, anybody can make a category a sub-category of something. You just put the category page into that category, like you would with an article. --Suki Brits 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

External properties and Fiction-only categories

To be consistent, what should the Wiki's policy be towards External properties and the fiction-only characters categories?

• An external property character like Godzilla should go in the comic-only characters category because, as far as Transformers fiction is concerned, he has only ever appeared in comics.
• External property characters should generally not appear in the fiction-only characters categories because they presumably have appearances in other media and toys from their external home franchise.

I've seen it used both ways on the wiki. - Starfield 11:47, 25 January 2013 (EST)

Do you want me to pick which one? Here is the description from the "fiction-only characters" page, if it helps. "Characters who do not exist as toys or merchandise, appearing only within the realm of Transformers fiction." - Starfield 14:42, 25 January 2013 (EST)

I don't think non-Transformers brand toys or merchandise count for this wiki when it comes to fiction-only categories. Just because I have a plastic effigy of Tom Baker doesn't mean I should take the "comic only" category off Doctor. --abates 16:00, 25 January 2013 (EST)

I would disagree with that. "Comic only" reads as if the character has never appeared elsewhere. You can put a disclaimer on the category page that it only refers to appearances in TF branded media, but the face value reading of the category is still what most people will think when they see it. Switching such things to an "External property" category makes everything much clearer. --Khajidha 10:19, 26 January 2013 (EST)

I agree with this (and with the similar sentiments from the 2007 discussion above - e.g., Rotty). - SanityOrMadness 10:40, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Oh wow. I guess I should have read the big block of five-and-a-half-year-old text above my post. I can't tell if there was a decision made back then, but, if there was, nobody actually updated the descriptions on the fiction-only categories like was suggested. Which part were you agreeing with, SanityOrMadness? - Starfield 11:02, 26 January 2013 (EST)

I can see limiting the wiki to worrying about Transformers fictional appearances, like abates said. But what about G.I. Joe and the Challenge of the GoBots GoBots? It seems especially inappropriate to label those toy-based characters as "comic-only." Should we exempt other Hasbro brands? - Starfield 14:03, 26 January 2013 (EST)

I'm not arguing that we should cover things outside of TF fiction, or even acknowledge them in the articles themselves, but it seems downright dishonest not to acknowledge them in the categories (which are mainly real-world derived). Thus, the Doctor is not a fiction only character; he is an external character whose links to the TF universes have occurred only in fiction. To me this seems a major distinction. --Khajidha 14:54, 26 January 2013 (EST)

So how about we stick with what we have. If someone wants to make the case to change things, they can lead the charge. What we have is the descriptions on the category pages, which say "Characters who do not exist as toys or merchandise, appearing only within the realm of Transformers fiction." External Property characters won't also go in the fiction-only categories. - Starfield 11:15, 27 January 2013 (EST)